Malthus’ nightscape is nigh, yo-
Frugal survivalism as if prepping is time sensitive

daily ad

Thursday, December 29, 2016

opportunity cost 1 of 2

OPPORTUNITY COST

Have you ever considered
the opportunity cost of prepping?Not
from the standard of cost.We are all
pretty focused on cost of preps.As in,
how to minimize cost and maximize return.That seems to be about the only argument out there.Gatekeeper of the 10% says you must have
twenty acres in the boonies with babbling brook and pasture and woods and
fields of swaying grain, pallets of ammunition for large arsenals of semi-auto’s
and if you don’t you are unworthy of survival ( a standard line going back to
the movement in the ‘70’s, one guru after another parroting the official line “the
poor need not apply”.With the exception
of Kurt Saxon who published his own books to be heard, may he be blessed for
eternity ).In the Fifties when everyone
made Union wages and yet strangely houses were affordable even with higher labor
costs, you could easily build a fallout shelter in your basement.It was affordable by all, which was a good
thing since the FedGov ( who started the Cold War by positioning the Soviet
Union as a foil to continue the wartime armaments production in fear of an
economic contraction-thank you Uncle Sugar for endangering humanity so your
defense industry companies could stay profitable ) whipped up the Russians and
then stopped building or stocking civilian fallout shelters.The Congress-critters were of course
protected, but Joe Average had to fend for himself.Not a bad thing, really, given the strategic
advance of decentralization, and the natural propensity of citizens to value
their own hide far more than our loving benevolent Big Daddy government would.

*

So, really, prior to the
Seventies, survivalism wasn’t really just a rich mans game.Rather, it was a working mans.My theory is that after the poor rose up in
righteous indignation in the ‘60’s and rebelled against being cannon fodder for
imperial adventures, the rich had to bribe them off.That worked of course, but as a natural human
nature response, the rich now hated the poor with a much brighter
intensity.Before, during the Great
Depression, the rich had to make some concessions to the poor or face open
armed rebellion ( with a LOT of trained combat vets willing to get
involved.The mobsters doing drive-bys
wasn’t the only reason gun control started-the ingrate poor were not going to
lay down and starve gratefully ).The
government went socialist only to the extent it needed to quell rebellion.And of course they ended up on the right end
of the stick ( the wrong end of the stick was the sponge part used to wipe your
ass in Roman public toilets, in case you didn’t know the origins of the saying
) by making that work for themselves.Prior to this, the poor were cannon fodder and machinery bait, but then
they became a real threat for the first time.

*

Let me tell you, the rich
hate giving anyone their money just as much as the poor do.So of course there is going to be resentment.Just as a White American resents spending a
trifle to keep the Indians alive after we stole all their land.Just as we resent giving Arabs money for oil
when we should get it for free ( see, you thought I hated rich bitches with
extreme prejudice.Of course I do-but I’m
not fond of hypocritical poor, either ).We are so brainwashed today that we hate Union members as if they were
communists.Which, yes, they are, but
without Unions we work in unsafe conditions for starvation wages.Which would you rather have?Socialist working conditions or fascist ones
( such as in Germany and the workers are involuntary Jews )?Just remember, voting Republican votes for
the party that colonized the South and sent all the jobs overseas ( and voting
Democrat votes for global imperial occupation AND gun control-so just don’t
vote ).

*

If the poor were resented
for taking money to NOT rebel against starvation, once they engaged in actual
open rebellion in the Flower Power decade, now they were hated and feared.Not just simple resentment but actual Mau-Mau
Rebellion filling your pants fright, loathing and hatred.It wasn’t bad enough the poor had to rebel,
now the Poor Blacks did?What was a
pasty rich boy to do?One answer was to
demonize the poor so as to eventually have the broad consent of the electorate
to ignore and penalize them ( even, ironically, most poor people ).The Mises Institute, and all of such ilk were
one subsidized method.The Reagan
Revolution another ( I’m a big fan of Ron, regardless of his evils which I
explain away as the fault of Bush Sr. ruling behind the throne after Ronald and
Nancy entered dementia city.I also know
I’m excusing one tool of the elites even as I demonize others ).In a very short time, the rich ( or more
accurately, the aspiring rich-which I call the 10% ) were our hero’s ( think
Michael Douglas’ character in “Wall Street” ) and the poor were criminals and
racists.Or criminal racists which was
allowed if you were Black-but NOT if you were White.Think of Political Correctness as having an
added advantage of fueling racism on both sides ( as well as sexism and other “ism’s”
) to understand its appeal to the elite.

*

So now you have all the
slightly better off’s turned against the working poor.Class warfare to the advantage of the
.01%.Have the 10% hate on the 90%, and
the 90% resentful of the target they can see.This has permeated every level of our culture, so why should it be a
surprise to any of us that the elites Butt Boys bark for a treat and are given
one to continue the propaganda that the rich deserve to survive the apocalypse
the elites will cause ( increased populations help the rich-always have.More cannon fodder and more peasants in the
field.The propaganda that the poor
procreate for their version of Social Security might be true, but is classical
misdirection )and the poor are scumbag
jag off’s?If you are one of the Pullers
Of Levers, someone that owns more assets than the GDP’s of several European
countries combined, social engineering is a very affordable hobby.Why would that have stopped at
Rockefeller?Anyway, that’s enough of
hating rich humpers.Tomorrow, more on
opportunity costs for preppers-and this time moving past the above described “the
poor deserve to die” paradigm.We’ll talk
about what it cost in missed opportunities to prep.

END

Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at
the top of the page.IF YOU DON’T SEE
THE AD, DISABLE AD BLOCK ( go to the Ad Blocker while on my page and scroll
down the menu to “disable this site” ). You can purchase anything, not just the
linked item. Enter Amazon through my item link and then go to whatever other
item you desire. As long as you don’t leave Amazon until after the order is
placed, I get credit for your purchase. For those that can’t get the
ads because they are blocked by your software, just PayPal me occasionally or
buy me something from my Amazon Wish List once a year.Pay your author-no one works for free.I’m nice enough to publish for mere Book
Money, so do your part.****Contact Information* Links
To Other Blogs * Land In Elko* Lord Bison* my bio & biblio* my web site is www.bisonprepper.com*wal-mart
wheat*Link To All
My Published Books*By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there

16 comments:

Opportunity Costs means IIRC that the funds invested in a static non-fluid account have to be reduced in actual value vs fluid funds that could have been moved to another higher yielding investment; thus costing you the 'Opportunity' to gain more yields.BUT - by my math the BEST possible yield is my and my family's survival, health, and happiness in roughly that order. Preps have a guaranteed yield on the first one, and if used correctly a high likely hood of the second. How could I loose by investing in preps vs pieces of paper with numbers on them? Sure once I have enough preps it is time to diversify the portfolio slowly but surely. Should I find a winning lotto ticket the first purchase is land, then shelter, food, water, security(including financial), and healthcare.The financial elite love the fact that happiness is at the top of almost everyone's list right now (and why wouldn't it be if the food and shelter is covered by existing infrastructure and various "safety nets" ...)

“Just as a White American resents spending a trifle to keep the Indians alive after we stole all their land.”

For Pete's sake Jim, at times (albeit rarely to your credit) you almost come across as sounding like one of those white guilt peddling liberals. I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that those fine natives didn't sit around suffering from “red guilt” following the theft of the neighboring tribes property, women, hunting grounds, and wholesale slaughter of the male tribe members.

Funny thing that white guilt. Apparently whites are the only demographic to care enough about other tribes to suffer from it. Not conducive to a long term survival strategy post apocalypse. Just ask the super survivalist dude whose final undoing will be to fail to fire on a band of marauding minorities for fear of appearing raciss!

I hope that at times I appear liberal and at times conservative, while at other times libertarian. I don't blindly follow any dogma. The left has some valid points as does the right ( while admitting the old left-right is flawed, I just use it as a fuzzy compass ). The problem is when you listen to ALL their rantings. I'm well aware the Dances With Wolves was White Guilt Fantasy. Two tribes of Injuns were just as crappy to each other as two European principalities. My point was our attitudes towards Free is skewed. We want free without acquisition or maintanence costs. Like Conservatives wanting to pay the help WAAAY below minimum wage, or liberals wanting to ignore biology in social engineering ( they can't learn anything from failed communist states because they are one ).

Understood Jim. It wasn't a criticism by the way. Well, it sort of was, but no offense was meant. In fact, you're one of the few writers that I can actually tolerate. The others are so pc addled as to be intolerable.

I must be even more anti-government than most, because I don't believe in a minimum wage. And to be clear, I'm not a business owner or rich. But my thoughts on this might be kind of long, so I'll spare you the details.

Oh, I understand the minimum wage issues. You want to oppose it to give apprentiships a comeback, and the mealy challenged or youth ( same thing )a simple job like sweeping the store, but on the other hand we've seen in the last thirty years what lack of govt. regulations or oversight in he "free market" produce.

“Oh, I understand the minimum wage issues. You want to oppose it to give apprentiships a comeback, and the mealy challenged or youth ( same thing )a simple job like sweeping the store”

Not quite Jim. To me it's simply a matter of private property rights, and as such, a private issue. Simply put, I believe that in a free society that a job is not a civil right, and that no one owes anyone anything. An employer is doing you a favor by hiring you and paying you a certain wage. I can imagine that this probably makes me come off as some sort of corporate fan boy, but I can assure you that I'm anything but. In fact, I'm undoubtedly your poorest minion, having been laid off, and considered unhirable at my age and lack of victimization status.

Oh, and is it just me, or is that Dances with Wolves movie the most boring waste of 3 hours in cinematic history?

As I've said before, I was a huge Libertarian back in the day. I know exactly what you are talking about with the freedom to hire/fire as you wish. But back in the real world you need laws to keep bad behavior at bay. Which includes labor exploitation. Also, as corporations get plenty of free goodies from the government, a big one being its use to crush competitors using its laws, and infrastructure use and tax breaks, it is kind of hard to argue that with all that socialism companies use to their benefit that they should get a free pass of wage regulations. I understand your position, but it is too idealistic.*I absolutely adored Dances With Wolves when it came out. The theatre was packed and we sat on the floor on a step against a wall. The movie was good enough it didn't bother us. Then, I watched many times on tape. Of course, I love epics. I can't count the number of times I've watched Apocalypse Now and Lawrence Of Arabia ( not saying Dances was anywhere near as good as those two, just that I love epics. Strangely, I've never tried others such as Reds or Dr. Chivago ). I think Heaven's Gate was a lot slower, even though I enjoyed and watched that many times.

“Labor exploitation”? Come on James? Wasn't aware that people were forced to have to work under unfair or dangerous circumstances? More like they made poor fiscal choices and had little choice in the matter. Had they been more responsible, their options would have been much better, such as exploring the gig economy, which is the latest trend to avoid said exploitation.

Yeah, I get it. Liberty is a pretty radical concept these days, and most Americans think that a job is a birthright, particularly those in the “extra special” protected classes. But we're talking about two different things here. Corporations having special privileges should not be a green light to destroy individual liberty and private property rights. The irony being that the corporation hating liberal is voting in the very people that are being bought out by the corporations, that in turn are providing them with this corporate welfare (And yes, I get that it's the same with both parties).

As a sort of funny story, I used to work along side this guy a few years back, that considered himself a Christian conservative. There was a radio ad that would come on that would really set this guy off, that was about IRS tax settlement. Because after all, as he exclaimed, “I have to pay my taxes”!

He never stopped to think to hold the thieving government accountable for their abusive theft, and actually resented the little guy for fighting back.

You are correct about the "forced" part, but the unfair and dangerous part is pretty standard. As an example ( although, yes, I voluntarily stick around for it ), I'm earning under minimum wage because my work won't refrain from continuing to add to my hours even after I've asked them not to ( and, those hours were the ones they set when in financial straights ) and I must take the 10% Obammy Health Care tax. I have to buy more food myself as I use more calories to do more manual labor they expect in half the labor hours. I am working in fifteen below zero and they provide zero protective gear. Not exactly chaining me to a machine and whipping me, I agree, but certainly a crappy way to repay a decade of royal, cheap work. I do more and more every year for less pay and they still treat me like a serf. The hilarious thing is that I've had far worse jobs ( you want unfair and dangerous working conditions? In peacetime? The military is a great example where incompetence alone is responsible ). I'm not angrily bellowing at the heavans about injustice here. I can leave anytime I want and have the means to do so. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that your nirvana of happy workers and free business owners is a bit off from reality.

“I'm merely trying to demonstrate that your nirvana of happy workers and free business owners is a bit off from reality.”

Not at all James. Private property rights, and the right to defend one's self, are the two most fundamental rights that an individual can have, and that's not too much to ask for. And any society in which the government decides the outcome to these two rights might be a lot things, but a free society is not one of them. Same with property taxes. If you're paying them, you do not own it. You can argue that it's all necessary, but I'm sure as hell not going to put any effort into such a society (I think they call it “Going Galt” from that Rand book that I never read).

And there's no nirvana under the best of working conditions James, unless you're one of the “untouchables” that gets handled with kid gloves. Also, I was never trying to argue that the corporations should have extra special privileges over everyone else. But to me, that's neither here nor there. There are ways to make a living without having to resort to working for a soul sucking corporation. They do not effect me, and those they do effect, made such choices to put themselves in such a situation. It all comes down to personal choices.

I respect your opinion-I used to share it. So we'll just agree to disagree. I had to look up "gig economy" as I was unfamiliar with it. I think we've kind of been at that place in a de facto manner for some time. When was the last corporate job for life? In the 1950's? Being stuck in retail for the last thirty years, I don't know that I can even contribute anything to the concept, however. Perhaps I'll come up with a different angle.

“I respect your opinion-I used to share it. So we'll just agree to disagree”

That's cool James, but some food for thought? You regularly speak out on feminism (and rightly so) but the very philosophy that you are supporting is what led to things like businesses being forced to hire and/or promote women over men, and this overall PC, feminist, brave new world that we now live in, that no society will ever survive, even absent of resource depletion. That's why we're now officially an extension of Mexico, and western Europe is an extension of Islam.

Of course, you are assuming if I pick one aspect of government oversight, I must buy into the entire socialist view. I AM picking my evil wisely, which is the whole point in governing. I WANT to be a libertarian but I see the bad in unfettered behavior and can't be. The market does NOT regulate itself when the controllers of the market are in bed with the government. All I'm trying to do is ask that some moderation of the greed of the market is allowed. I think that PC'ness is a whole other issue. Social engineering is not the same as economic class engineering, even if there is a certain correlation with the beginning desires of each. Look at it this way. Unionism is socialism, but needed, but it is NOT asking to change the biological roles of the sexes. It was just about protecting the workers. NOT trying to make women some of the workers.

“Of course, you are assuming if I pick one aspect of government oversight, I must buy into the entire socialist view. I AM picking my evil wisely, which is the whole point in governing.”

No hard feelings James, but I don't think that I will be able to follow/support this site anymore, a difficult decision for me after all these years. I suppose that private property rights are a sore subject with me, after witnessing one too many times “anti-discrimination” laws (Code word for it's okay to discriminate against white guys like you and I) under the guise of “workers rights” in action. That's why I'm so fiercely opposed to this sort of thing. Don't take this as an angry retreat, because it's really not. I really enjoyed your writing, and the fact that you managed to keep the PC out of it, unlike most other writers. I wish you the best, and hope that your writing career eventually leads to better things.

I must moderate-trust me. You don't want to see what happens otherwise. Sometimes it takes awhile to respond as I only check two or three times a day. No N-Bombs, nothing to get me libeled. Otherwise, have at it. If you criticize me, make sure to praise my hair first.